The clarion., 1887-11-02
THE State UNIVERSITY.
Reply of Prof. Edward Mayes to
Senator j. z. George.
OXFORD. MISS. Oct. %. 1897

EDiTJR CLARION-On the 9TH inst
.JJrsssed YOU a letter in reference Il
.Lo Communication of Senator George
.ancbipg the financial relations tetveer
he state and the State University. II
.bo, letter ! promised to answer tn,
Senarors communication, stating that
.5ougbt be had erred both on question
of TACT and on propositions of law.
T,rite now In fultillment of that promise
In the outset, | wish to say that dC
not sneak with authority as the fnan
cisl agent Of the University; that an
cot But ! am a citizen of the State
and,an alumnus Of the institution; anC
IN that capacity, | have right tC
speak.
mspt is fallqcious and misleading, and
HI. conclusions wholly mistaken and
nntenable, for the following general
reasons:
FRgr.-He has overlooked facts vital
lv important to the proper determine
ian Of the issue presented by him.
SFCoSpLY-He has assumed, and
,o.itiyely announced as existent and
material facts, things many of which
are unsustaiued by proof, and some of
which can be shown to have no existence
except in his fancy.
TgrEDLY.-He has totally miscon-
ceiyed the import of the statutes of the
state and OF the United States, which
bear on and largely control this matter
and,
FoURrHLY.-Heh has invoked and ap-
nlied here principles of law which have
II. L..
distinctions so obvious to trained legal
mind, that | should not have believed
Il possible to overlook or ignore them,
except for the fact that the undoubtedly
able Senator has done so.
This formidable array of specifca-
tions. | shall now endeavor to make
good in detail. But in the beginning,
in order to detect the fallacies of the
Senator. and to understand the bearings
of my argument, it is necessary to get a
clear comprehension, first of the true
character of the parties to these trans
actions and their mutual relations; sec
ondlv. of the nature of the claim for
the settlement of which the act of 1880
was passed; and to hold these points in
view always.
Exactly what then is the University
of Mississippi? Senator George calls it
"a corporation;" and so it is a sort of
corporation, but not by any means a
corporation Of that kind included in the
principles relied on by the Senator, or
in the cases cited by him. 1t is elemen-
tary law that corporations are divisibe
into classes. One primary division is,
into private and public corporations. A
private corporation is one organized and
chartered to accomplish some private
ends Of the corporatOrs, as in the case of
a factory; while public corporation is
one organized and chartered to accom-
plish some public end of the govern
ment, over which the government re-
tains the exclusive control, and the rea-
son for the very existence of which is
that IL is part Of the governmental ma
chinery; as in the case of a town. An
other classification is that into civil Cor
business) corporations, as in the case of
factory gain; and eleemosynary cor
porations, which are organized, not for
"business" purposes, but for the dis
pensing of charity-such as hospitals,
free schools, etc. These classifcations
are not exclusive of each other; a cor
poration can be at once public and an
eleemosynary corporation; and such i
the State University. In the case of
The State VS.. The V. q n. r. X. Co., 81
Miss, %. 368, our own Supreme Court
speaking of the State University and o.
the Alcorn University, says: ''Neithe
of these institutions are, in the lega
sense, private corporations. They diC
not have their origin in private or ind
yidual endowment, but are sustained b
DubLic eadolcments and appropriations
The title to their property is In tn
State. They are public corporations, ei
tablished and endowed by public author
ity and funds, and are controlled b
trustees amounted by the State for linite
terms" BY the way, observe that Sci
ator George was of counsel in that cas-
and won 1t on that proposition, anon
others
Now in all the history of the uniye
sity, although large endowment cam
to it from the United States, no one hs
ever maintained that it is Federal II
stitution. 1t is indubitably a publ
corporation of the State, organized tc
the specific purpose of dispensing, as
part of the States machinery, the gres
charity of education. The very natui
and purpose of its establishment COZ
clusiyely imply that its business rel;
tiOns with the State are to be governe
by principles essentially different froi
those that govern the relations betwee
the State and private business corpor
tions. The paternal, or fostering, prll
ciple intervenes, and produces impor
ant notifications of ordinary rules.
illustrate: if man buy piece OF Ian
pay for it with his own money, but ha'
the deed made to a stranger, the law WI
presume that the stranger took the TIT
merely as trustee for the beneht
the purchaser, and will hold him
such trustee, unless evidence is produ
ed to show that the contrary was act
ally intended; whereas, if the person
whom the deed is made is the child OF G
purchaser, the directly contrary pi
sumption will obtain, and the law WI
hold him to be the owner In his o'
right, unless evidence is produced.
show that such was not the lntentio
Now. while the rule as to applicatio
of payments, and the other rule as
the construction of grants, would
Just as Senator George puts them, as
tween the State and a private buslne
corporation; yet here, and Tor the II
sons Just given, the directly contra
rules will prevail. All payments ma
b. the State will be considered dol
tions for the furtherance OF the chari
which was the avowed and only OBJ
of the establishment of the Institute
unless a contrary intent clearly apes
from the grant itself, or from the
tendant circumstances; and all gral
made by the State ii. e., all statutes
furtherance of the charity, VIII
literally construed in favor OF the Y
versity, in order to further the Inc
putable intent of the State.
These considerations entirely supV
the authority of Gen. George 8 referene
as applied to this case; in the one case
was a question between the uni
States and some private land-ciaimai
and in the other question between
State os Delaware and railroad CO
pany. The presumptions on whic
insist, in all their various phases, are
perfect accord with the most wideiy
perienced sentiments Tin fact' are
mitted by law for that very reasonl,
will be at once recognized as passu
sound principle. Yet the Senator
sition entirely ignores them; ana ~
the appropriations made by the Ssse' =
the University during a period OF 70
FIVE years, and amounting, as ne sun
up, to 81. .l64, ,339. 40, he allows only
comparatiyely Insignificant sum
$129, ,4O1 .25 (that is to say, an ave-
of $2,764.47 per annum) IS the o1s
contribution to this great WORK. :,
position is not only untenaole - - !,
proposition, but also Is IN direc. Son
with the well known historical iao:s
When / say that the position - =
rect conflict with the weii-kno"I H.,
of history, / allude to TWO u's'
classes of facts. :.
1st. Senator George allows - -
ylent from the State, only TWO itoll''